Faith, which is the firm belief in person or concept in spite of proof or evidence to the contrary, needs to be challenged because that faith can be very dangerous for the individual or the society which shares the same faith-based idea set. Once faith is adopted, the individual or groups of individuals faithfully believing in the proposed idea or concept (regardless of how ridiculous or absurd their faith is) are more apt to commit atrocities in the name of their faith. That point has been proven over and over again when an individual decides to carry out the ultimate act of faith (dying in the name of their faith). Please understand that when I am speaking of faith, I am speaking of religious faith and not faith in your doctor, faith in your pilot, etc. Other usages, such as faith in your doctor, or faith in the police, have quite different explanations and are not relevant here.

Human nature is dangerous. Humans have been slaughtering each other for thousands of years because of faith and not because of faith. Faith may be the justification of the violence and "danger," but it is not the cause of the violence. To claim that faith is dangerous, or more dangerous than the standard of human behavior, is like claiming that diverse cultures are dangeous since cultures are violent and hateful against other cultures simply because they are different. Faith may be the excuse for the violence but humans will find a way to harm each other even when faith isn't involved. Examples: the reign of Stalin, African genocides, World War 1, World War 2, the Cold War (which put the survival of the entire world in "danger")...
Also, the Crusades is probably known as one of the worst acts of "faith" committed by the Christians. However, a large part of the Christian message is basically to love your neighbor as yourself, so does it seem like the powerful Christians that started the Crusades did it by "faithfully" serving their God or is it more plausible that they were doing it for their own motives?

"Human nature is dangerous." I will encourage my opponent to understand that I'm not disagreeing with the fact that human nature is dangerous. However, this debate is regarding the fact that FAITH is dangerous and is used as a tool to incite violence.

Faith is indeed the cause of violence. I'll ask my opponent to consider 9-11, the Suni-Shia violence and the acts of blind faith required for one to kill himself (Jim Jones). Blind faith becomes a tool for violence all too often. The reason for it is inherent in what it is. If you blindly believe what you are told, then if you are told to give your kid the kool-aid, or to blow yourself up to get 72 virgins in heaven, you will. The problem with blind faith is that it teaches people to suspend their reasoning skills, and even actively inhibits reasoning skills in order to keep having that blind faith.

"To claim that faith is dangerous, or more dangerous"- Again, I'm not saying that faith is MORE dangerous than anything else. I will remind my opponent and the reader that this debate deals purely with the fact that faith is indeed dangerous; not that it's more dangerous than anything else.

In round one, my opponent has failed to defend his position; in fact, he supported my claim by saying, "Humans have been slaughtering each other for thousands of years because of faith" which would lead a reasonable person to believe that faith is dangerous. Again, this debate is concerned with the dangers of faith, NOT if it is more or less dangerous when compared to something else.

My opponent has completely misunderstood the relative comparison that I have brought up. What we need to see here is that if everything is dangerous, then nothing is dangerous unless there is something that is more dangerous than everything else. For example, if everybody was "smart" and had an IQ of 120 then if someone had an IQ of 120, it wouldn't be considered smart, they would just be average. Only when someone's IQ is above 120 will they be considered "smart." Similarly, since human nature is dangerous, and human nature causes the violence done in the name of faith, then faith is in fact no more dangerous than anything else. It is in a sense the "average" of danger. Only when something exceeds the dangers of human nature is it considered "dangerous" such as genocide.

Also, my opponent is assuming that all faith is "blind" faith. However, there are many pieces of evidence that are needed to justify a person's beliefs in many cases such as intelligent design.

My opponent also failed to respond to the logic that I pointed out which said that many faiths have nothing to do with violence, in fact, Christianity which is the largest religion in the world has a message of non-violence and peac and love. My opponent's claim that faith is dangerous is a sweeping generalization.

You not responding...I did not know what to say...so I said N/A...then "letting me have it"...I don't know if that's a tactic or what...but at this point, the debate is over. If was not a tactic and you did not respond because you didn't have the time, then you should not have accepted this debate.